Our Local New York Times Editor wrote a July 19th editorial entitled, When Sin Is On the Other Conservative Foot. Now as usual, I have yet to see his reason and logic. For the last two/thirds of the editorial he writes a satirical conversation between Senator Vitter of Louisiana and God. In the end he more than demonstrates that Sen. Vitter has no moral authority to pass legislation against gay marriage.
Now I must admit that I like satire. If I did not know who wrote this particular editorial, I would have whole-heartedly agreed with this portion of it. Mr. Haxton is condemning men who are not qualified for a particular office. Lawmakers in Congress should be above reproach. Sen. Vitter deserves to be removed from office.
My contention with our Local New York Times Editor is not this particular argument, but his conclusion. Is he really against Sen. Vitter’s behavior, or is there something more to his argument? For instance, the first paragraph says:
“Being an Evangelical Christian not only gives you a direct line to God, but it apparently puts you in the express lane (10 sins or fewer) when it comes to seeking forgiveness.”
Now he has written this thought many times. Is he really concerned that there are immoral Senators attempting to pass legislation against immorality? If that were the case, why do we Scott City subscribers never see an editorial against Democrats? Even in the same state Rep. William Jefferson was smuggling $10,000 cash in his home freezer. The same Rep. also used the National Guard during Hurricane Katrina to retrieve that money. Isn’t it odd that we didn’t read one blip about that?
The truth comes out when Haxton writes these two paragraphs:
While the Senate was debating the ‘Protection of Marriage Amendment,’ Vitter was a vocal opponent of gay marriage. He said nothing was more important in ‘promoting that stable, loving, nurturing home environment’ necessary to avoid many of society’s ills.
Of course, one might also maintain a nurturing home environment by using a pay phone that can’t be traced.”
[Hustler exposed Vitter’s phone calls to a “D.C. Madam”.]
Again, if Haxton were just arguing for a removal of this man from office, I would commend him. Haxton is however not really arguing that, for he is plainly for immoral behavior.
This is where Haxton’s hypocrisy truly blazes forth. The problem is that Haxton doesn’t believe Evangelicals have a direct line with God. He really doesn’t believe God is able to speak at all. For nowhere in the satire does Haxton ever defend Gay Marriage, he simply assumes it while arguing through satire that judging others is wrong.
On what basis does Haxton defend gay marriage? Is this a moral issue? When he argues against God speaking, what does he do with Jesus’ words in defining marriage?
“And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.’”
To put it another way, if Haxton’s main argument is that we should not judge others, then why write a satire that clearly judges? What presuppositions is he using? How can he say anything is wrong if God’s revelation and voice is now mute? Why should I accept his weak kneed conventional morality over my superior position? Arguing against hypocrisy is one thing. Arguing that Vitter’s position is wrong through his hypocrisy is illogical. [I do agree that simply arguing that marriage is better by contemporary standards is weak at best, and I would not side with the thoughtless and intellectually barren popular conservative arguments.]
Over the years, it has been interesting for me observe how men borrow from the Christian worldview in order to condemn the Christian worldview. To assume Christianity is true and then to repudiate it is illogical and irrational. Perhaps that is why the New York Times is losing subscribers. Perhaps that is why the Local New York Times is as well?
1 comment:
When I say, "To assume Christianity is true and then to repudiate it is illogical and irrational." I do mean the presuppositions of Christianity.
There is no other religion on earth given by God so directly and forcefully and clearly as Christianity. Only Christianity accounts for logic, reason, morality ect......
So to assume logic is by defaul to assume Christianity. Therefore to use logic to refute Christianity is simply ignorant and requires that I believe in the impossibility of the contrary. That is irrational.
Post a Comment